Say no to maximalism

[BlackHatCoiner]

The most common issue people have with memecoins is that there has been a lot of failure and fraud in this business. That's a huge problem, but it needs to be challenged head-on. Consumers want safety most of all: they want to be able to invest in a memecoin and not worry about getting ripped off, or the market being manipulated unfairly.

How about they stop "investing" in memecoins? You can't expect both safety and massive gains without any risk. You either accept the risk of investing in a pyramid scheme, or you avoid dog coins that promise to make you rich. Sounds fair to me.

But the first step here is to realize this is not a zero-sum game. The growth of memecoins will increase the adoption of Bitcoin, not shrink it.

Memecoins with no utility are essentially zero-sum games, where every gain is perfectly balanced by an equal loss.

Plus some of those technologies will be implemented in Bitcoin, either off-chain, or on-chain, or side-chain in its own time and out of necessity.

But not all, and not at the moment. This supports my argument that having a market of various cryptocurrencies with different features and trade-offs is a net benefit. Do you think encrypting transaction amounts could lead to an undetected inflation bug? Fine, then don't risk Bitcoin with that. We have Monero if you ever need it.

[avp2306]

Actually bitcoin is superior to the other alts in many ways. None of the alts have the same network effect which bitcoin has. Bitcoin had a natural coin distribution since the beginning and it is because even though satoshi was the first miner, his coins never moved.

I strongly agree that bitcoin is far superior than every other altcoin.

However, there is a point in BlackHatCoiner argument, which he didn't mention: there are good opportunities outside cryptocurrencies.

There are many other good assets around: Gold, stocks, other metals, even treasuries or other bonds. The World is so vast to be fixed in 1 type of asset.

If that is options is in discussions then provably that there's no question that its no good to believe only on bitcoin since there's an alternative asset like what you mention is a good investment to choice.

But if we talk about the whole crypto space then I guess there's no coin or token would surpass the supremacy of bitcoin. So can't blame those people to became a bitcoin maximalist especially if they don't want to deal with huge risk brought by other altcoins.

I really understand the point of OP since somehow we can see lots of opportunity if we just do good investment approach especially on top altcoins.

[taufik123]

The most common issue people have with memecoins is that there has been a lot of failure and fraud in this business. That's a huge problem, but it needs to be challenged head-on. Consumers want safety most of all: they want to be able to invest in a memecoin and not worry about getting ripped off, or the market being manipulated unfairly.

How about they stop "investing" in memecoins? You can't expect both safety and massive gains without any risk. You either accept the risk of investing in a pyramid scheme, or you avoid dog coins that promise to make you rich. Sounds fair to me.
-snip-

Even, risks will occur in any type of investment, whether in crypto with Bitcoin or memecoins.
People who say "memecoins are just unsafe junk coins with a lot of manipulation", of course they are not aware that DOGE exists until now and manipulation can be done by anyone, but not for the long term.
I even buy and hold Bitcoin and also have a number of top Memecoins that I think will make huge profits.

-snip-
I really understand the point of OP since somehow we can see lots of opportunity if we just do good investment approach especially on top altcoins.

The top altcoins are the best choice, but of course it also needs research if it is going to be used as a long-term investment.
Some of the top altcoins are now hype and have a lot of fans, but don't get complacent with altcoins, because Bitcoin will affect all altcoins all of a sudden.

[legiteum]

The most common issue people have with memecoins is that there has been a lot of failure and fraud in this business. That's a huge problem, but it needs to be challenged head-on. Consumers want safety most of all: they want to be able to invest in a memecoin and not worry about getting ripped off, or the market being manipulated unfairly.

How about they stop "investing" in memecoins? You can't expect both safety and massive gains without any risk. You either accept the risk of investing in a pyramid scheme, or you avoid dog coins that promise to make you rich. Sounds fair to me.

The word "investing" and the word "gambling" really amount to the same thing. In both cases people are buying something in hopes of a gain. Getting inside people's heads as to why they are buying XYZ is endlessly complicated. You should just accept that people invest/gamble/etc. whatever they feel like buying for a million different reasons. You have your rational and they have theirs.

I've lived long enough to understand that I don't have all of the answers, and a vibrant market with lots of opinions--including very "wrong" opinions--is critical to grow an overall market.

[nutildah]

But the first step here is to realize this is not a zero-sum game. The growth of memecoins will increase the adoption of Bitcoin, not shrink it.

Memecoins with no utility are essentially zero-sum games, where every gain is perfectly balanced by an equal loss.

Memecoins are actually a less-than-zero-sum game as the most successful ones are run by professional scammers who simply delete value out of crypto and put it back into fiat. A thousand new normies need to be onboarded to make up for one good memecoin, like the Caitlyn Jenner coin for instance. Already forgot what it was called, seems like a millions years ago already in terms of the life cycles of these coins (they're actually tokens and not coins but nobody cares anymore).

The value of the memecoin is actually dependent on two things: marketing (first and foremost) and memetic staying power (a distant second). A really good idea might get to a multi-million-dollar market cap with average marketing, but a really dumb idea can get to a billion with great marketing.

Take WIF for example. Utterly stupid in every sense of the word, $1.6 bil market cap, millions traded every day. But for whatever reason they have a perfect marketing machine, and its still up 900% since it launched at the end of last year.

[stompix]

Ltc fees are cheap because nobody uses it. Network is not congested.  

Ltc fes are cheap because the network is not congested, the network is not congested because the capacity is enough for the 10k-200k transactions they are doing daily and can handle even 1 million a day.If you apply the same logic to the fees in Bitcoin coming down is because nobody is using it right now, right?
Bth doge and LTF have acted like flood controls lately, taking a lot of pressure from BTC, exactly because they are cheap and can deal with a ton of transactions.

But the first step here is to realize this is not a zero-sum game. The growth of memecoins will increase the adoption of Bitcoin, not shrink it.

The only way to agree with you on this one is to think of it like Ponzi schemes will make victims understand that there is no such thing as unlimited money and stick to stocks and traditional investments, so yeah, meme coins help Bitcoin just as Ponzi schemes help banks!

[legiteum]

The only way to agree with you on this one is to think of it like Ponzi schemes will make victims understand that there is no such thing as unlimited money and stick to stocks and traditional investments, so yeah, meme coins help Bitcoin just as Ponzi schemes help banks!

Spoken like a true Bitcoin Maximalist!

[Kruw]

The word "investing" and the word "gambling" really amount to the same thing. In both cases people are buying something in hopes of a gain.

No, these terms are opposites. An investment involves decision making whereas a gamble does not.

[BlackHatCoiner]

The word "investing" and the word "gambling" really amount to the same thing.

If they amount to the same thing, then you're talking about "gambling safety", which doesn't make sense. Gambling is inherently unsafe, as the odds are always in favor of the house.

[legiteum]

The word "investing" and the word "gambling" really amount to the same thing.

If they amount to the same thing, then you're talking about "gambling safety", which doesn't make sense. Gambling is inherently unsafe, as the odds are always in favor of the house.

Investing is "inherently unsafe" too. Any investment can lose money. And any bet can win money.

Buying Bitcoin or any other digital currency is speculation. You can have good or bad reasons for doing it, but barring your ability to determine the future, you ultimately never know what will happen.

No, these terms are opposites. An investment involves decision making whereas a gamble does not.

Every gamble involves a decision. Do you think this horse will run faster? Or Mbappe will score? Or Harris will win the election? Then you place your bet. It's a losing battle trying to determine what is "smart investing" versus "dumb gambling" in some universal way because there will always be exceptions in either direction.

[d5000]

The memecoin debate is actually interesting, I think.

I tend to support the assumption that they increase the awareness of the crypto space, as they're a "fun way" to enter a world which often is associated with nerdy geeks and wannabe pro traderz At least this should be true for memecoins like Doge which are not simply a tool to enrich their founders. So in theory users could "trickle" into the crypto space and eventually will "land" in the arms of the safest and biggest one, Bitcoin.

The memecoin wave which started (?) with Ordinals, (or at least I'm aware of it since then), where the creators let random people "mint" coins until a certain limit, however is economically totally useless and very prone to scams, as nobody knows how many coins were already minted by the creator as he can use the number of addresses he likes and thus fake an "even" distribution and high popularity. Only few coins really circulate and that makes price manipulation to the upside easy. Even a premined memecoin (with transparent tokenomics) is probably often fairer.

These practices of course lead to disappointment and so I can understand the opinion that memecoins are actually harmful, too.

I'd like to read research about that issue: do memecoins enrich the crypto ecosystem or not? While I have found some papers on Google Scholar about the "co-explosivity" in price (i.e. that Bitcoin and memecoins tends to "bubble" at the same time, and Bitcoin price unidirectionally seems to influence memecoin prices) but nothing really on a longer-lasting influence of memecoins on Bitcoin adoption. An interesting find was instead this study, where memecoins were found to be a possible "hedge" for Bitcoin crashes 

We employ the popular methodology of Baur and McDermott (2010), Baur and Lucey (2010) and find that meme coins can act as significant hedges against Bitcoin, while the other types of altcoins do not. We also show DeFi, Meme Coins, Smart contracts, Metaverse and Privacy cryptocurrencies can all act as safe-havens during extreme Bitcoin price movements

See PDF of study here

This study which explores behavioral patterns on social media which may influence memecoins, meme stocks and Bitcoin prices may also be interesting but is not freely accessible.

[tottong]

The word "investing" and the word "gambling" really amount to the same thing.

If they amount to the same thing, then you're talking about "gambling safety", which doesn't make sense. Gambling is inherently unsafe, as the odds are always in favor of the house.

Investing is "inherently unsafe" too. Any investment can lose money. And any bet can win money.

Buying Bitcoin or any other digital currency is speculation. You can have good or bad reasons for doing it, but barring your ability to determine the future, you ultimately never know what will happen.

When risk management can be applied then losses are a way that can be minimized.
Of course there is no guarantee that losses can be made in full percentage, but from what I have seen investing in bitcoin has the ability to avoid the risk of loss if one does not panic and can stay calm even though the market is experiencing a severe correction.

Bitcoin always has a recovery moment and vice versa with corrections so we can conclude that calm and patience are the keys.
Patience and calm can be achieved if one understands how to run the right investment and has good knowledge.

Every gamble involves a decision. Do you think this horse will run faster? Or Mbappe will score? Or Harris will win the election? Then you place your bet. It's a losing battle trying to determine what is "smart investing" versus "dumb gambling" in some universal way because there will always be exceptions in either direction.

Differentiate gambling from investing, I agree they are two different things.
When you gamble the odds of winning are not visible, although sometimes we can make analysis to support it.
There are always exceptions and this is where maturity of thought is needed before someone decides which one to conquer.

[betswift]

Maximalism is the mindset that your project is the only valid one. This approach leads to a refusal to consider new information. It is dogmatic and somewhat intellectually limiting, in my opinion. And I have encountered it several times in this forum.

Bitcoin maximalists tend to dismiss the perspectives of those outside Bitcoin. While I respect the economic tenets of Bitcoin, such as digital scarcity, the superiority complex should not overshadow technical discussions. Bitcoin is not inherently superior to other cryptocurrencies like Monero or Litecoin; it simply has its own trade-offs.

However, there's more to consider. Bitcoin embodies the free-market ideals envisioned by Austrian economists, who would likely support a market of competing currencies. To me, that means Bitcoin embraces this variety of cryptocurrencies. Being a Bitcoin maximalist is actually contrary to the spirit of Bitcoin, because it involves unwavering support for Bitcoin, when you should be skeptical and rigorous in examining its potential weaknesses. We move forward in life by addressing our flaws, not by celebrating our achievements. As Charles Darwin said,

It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.

Don't be myopic and dogmatic. Say no to maximalism.

Thanks for this post. I do agree with you, we can't just put a blindfold with BTC written over it and say that it's the greatest thing we have. Of course, it's great, but sometimes people miss it or just straight-up avoid other opportunities or innovations that come from change and progress.

[Wind_FURY]

Plus some of those technologies will be implemented in Bitcoin, either off-chain, or on-chain, or side-chain in its own time and out of necessity.

 

But not all, and not at the moment.

Although true, but when the time is right and as I already posted - out of necessity, they will be built and developed in Bitcoin in one form or another.

This supports my argument that having a market of various cryptocurrencies with different features and trade-offs is a net benefit. Do you think encrypting transaction amounts could lead to an undetected inflation bug? Fine, then don't risk Bitcoin with that. We have Monero if you ever need it.

Privacy features could be implemented through an off-chain layer or a sidechain, not necessarily on-chain. And with Bitcoin's network effects and wider general adoption, I'm very VERY confident that it will have more users than Monero.

[legiteum]

The memecoin wave which started (?) with Ordinals, (or at least I'm aware of it since then), where the creators let random people "mint" coins until a certain limit, however is economically totally useless and very prone to scams, as nobody knows how many coins were already minted by the creator as he can use the number of addresses he likes and thus fake an "even" distribution and high popularity. Only few coins really circulate and that makes price manipulation to the upside easy. Even a premined memecoin (with transparent tokenomics) is probably often fairer.

There are solutions to each of these issues, in particular the token being pre-mined, and the number of tokens outstanding thus being well-known to the buyers. Even better, an entire platform dedicated to low-end memecoins that are easy for consumers to understand and have well-defined rules that apply the same way for every coin on the platform such that users only have to learn the rules once for potentially thousands of different coins--and a platform dedicated to keeping things fair and fraud-free for users (sorta like how eBay is in the business of making things fair for buyers and sellers).

I'd like to read research about that issue: do memecoins enrich the crypto ecosystem or not? While I have found some papers on Google Scholar about the "co-explosivity" in price (i.e. that Bitcoin and memecoins tends to "bubble" at the same time, and Bitcoin price unidirectionally seems to influence memecoin prices) but nothing really on a longer-lasting influence of memecoins on Bitcoin adoption. An interesting find was instead this study, where memecoins were found to be a possible "hedge" for Bitcoin crashes 

Very interesting article. Thanks for sharing. I would love for these authors to update their findings after Haypenny gets further along since I think it can change the trajectory of things when adoption can be much broader and trading velocity can be much higher. In other words, the current platforms for memecoins still isn't great (fraud, clunky, not well known), and it will get way easier in the future, and a lot safer--meaning people can/will put a lot more money into them in the future, and the risk premium will be much lower (the systemic risk premium that is, not the risk on the meme itself).

[Dr.Bitcoin_Strange]

Seems you are speaking to me directly because ever since I had so many lose in most of the unprofitable altcoins that I invested on, I just dislike to invest in altcoins because I believe it requires someone to luckily invest in the right altcoins and also sell at the right time when they would not have to regret why they sold so early or late and also why they didn't sell earlier. It can be so dynamic most of the time but I know I will still go back to trying luck with some altcoins with time.

I don't like to discourage anyone from investing in any asset of their choice  but I can only offer some opinion for a newbie who is not yet knowledgeable enough in the crypto space.

[447cryptokeeper]

Well if one doesn't have big capital, it worth to consider taking risks with meme coins at the beginning, and for the ones with chunky capital Bitcoin is a good way to protect and multiply their money pretty safe imho

[348Judah]

Maximalism is the mindset that your project is the only valid one. This approach leads to a refusal to consider new information. It is dogmatic and somewhat intellectually limiting, in my opinion. And I have encountered it several times in this forum.

Being a maximalist will deprived us of more opportunities for learning new things and getting new ideas, because we may think that all we are having is the only way forward as well as the best, when there are new projects and developments happening every day in which some are taking advantage of to earn and make a living, while we are still in wait ion the same focus and approach we have been using over time without yielding us adequate result as we needed, we have to be open in some certain aspect that could involve learning and knowing more about what we do and  not that we have to focus on one direction only, some may term this a being able to have the ability to diversify and develop accurate thinking as well.

[m2017]

Maximalism is the mindset that your project is the only valid one. This approach leads to a refusal to consider new information. It is dogmatic and somewhat intellectually limiting, in my opinion. And I have encountered it several times in this forum.

Maximalism is not the same as rationalism.

Bitcoin maximalists tend to dismiss the perspectives of those outside Bitcoin. While I respect the economic tenets of Bitcoin, such as digital scarcity, the superiority complex should not overshadow technical discussions. Bitcoin is not inherently superior to other cryptocurrencies like Monero or Litecoin; it simply has its own trade-offs.

And in technical terms, it is even inferior to other cryptocurrencies. It is inferior to the same Monero in privacy or to the conditional Solana in speed and cheapness of transactions.

However, there's more to consider. Bitcoin embodies the free-market ideals envisioned by Austrian economists, who would likely support a market of competing currencies. To me, that means Bitcoin embraces this variety of cryptocurrencies. Being a Bitcoin maximalist is actually contrary to the spirit of Bitcoin, because it involves unwavering support for Bitcoin, when you should be skeptical and rigorous in examining its potential weaknesses. We move forward in life by addressing our flaws, not by celebrating our achievements.

There are no ideal financial instruments, when interacting with which you should take into account their "weak points" in order to protect yourself from trouble. For example, like Ross Ulbricht, who overestimated the technical capabilities of bitcoin.

As Charles Darwin said,

It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.

Natural selection is inherent not only to the animal world, but also to the digital one.

Don't be myopic and dogmatic. Say no to maximalism.

"Say no to maximalism." - Say Yes to rationalism.

[d5000]

There are solutions to each of these issues, in particular the token being pre-mined, and the number of tokens outstanding thus being well-known to the buyers.

Unfortunately even in this case the token issuers can be dishonest and achieve the same result. If there is an ICO, they can simply sell meme tokens to themselves. At least if the payment is anonymous -- or if the KYC is done by the issuers themselves.

The only way to prevent this really is to distribute the coin via mining or validation (like Doge) from the start or via PoS. If mining is not an option, premine a relatively small part and then distributing the rest via PoS is a possibility, although in this case of course the founders will likely participate in the PoS as well.

Or the whole distribution is done via an IEO or another centralized platform with KYC. However, there are many reasons such distributions are also not really ideal. I'd still prefer Doge's model.

Edit: A little addition to the article about memecoins as "hedge" for Bitcoin. I think the big problem with this method is that you still have to know in which memecoins to invest, so it should be always a gamble. For example, in the last few months dogwifhat was the big star of the memecoins, but just in the last dip all the way down to 49-50k it performed even worse than Bitcoin. I guess like the authors of the study (they chose those listed in the memecoins category on Coinmarketcap) you could try to create a basket of memecoins, but it would be still quite "gamble-y".